What does it REALLY take to set off a nuke?

[Lynarii]

Anti-matter disintegrates with enormous explosive power when it touches matter.

Which is why it has so far been impossible to store in sufficient quantities to be usable as an explosive device.

In other words, weaponizing anti-matter is trivial. Storing it is the problem, and that's not likely to be solved anytime soon.

The other problem with using anti-matter as a weapon is that it's expensive. In 1999, NASA quoted a single gram of antihydrogen as costing about $62.5 trillion. It would also take CERN roughly 100 billion years to create this single gram operating at peak capacity with 0% loss.

Give me $62.5 trillion dollars and 100 billion years, and I'll cause more damage with a crew of workers and some shovels than a single gram of antihydrogen will cause in an explosion. We're a VERY long way away from large-scale practical applications of antimatter.

[Meteoric]

Personally i think anti-matter will be the next big thing as it's in a whole different league to "the atom" which was in a whole different league to it's predecessor.

Although so far I don't know of any successful tests where anti-matter has been used as a weapon or an explosive device, just that it exsists and we are now cabalbe of creating such a substance if for now just in very small quantaties.

The power of an explosion depicted in Dan Brown's novel Angels and Demons and subsiquently the film adaptation is something on par with how humbling and impressive i imagine an anti-matter detonation to look.

Well for one thing, antimatter is absurdly difficult to generate in any meaningful quantities. CERN estimates it has cost hundreds of millions of dollars to produce about 1 billionth of a gram of antiparticles; at that rate, it would be hundreds of trillions for a whole gram. And even if we can make it, it's borderline impossible to accumulate or store, as Taiphon points out. And then if we can make and store it somehow, that one gram of antimatter will annihilate with one gram of regular matter, for 2 grams total, which by e=mc^2 would be about one-twentieth of a megaton of TNT-equivalent. We already have bombs in the tens-of-megatons range. And lastly, even if we could create and store antimatter and it was meaningfully more powerful than a nuke, why would we even want that???? Nukes are already too powerful to ever want to use. At least with nukes, MAD mostly comes from the retaliation; a world-ending antimatter bomb would be MAD because the one bomb kills everything.

Edit: multiplication fail

[Deleted]

How advanced is the US anti air missile technology? Could we stop or even detect an incoming nuke, it would most likely be a stealth nuke yeah?

A single ballistic missile can theoretically be intercepted.

Area-defense against a large-scale nuclear attack is practically impossible. The problem is that a) the interceptors are as expensive as the nuclear missiles themselves, and b) the nuclear missiles can deploy decoys which are indistinguishable from the real thing and which therefore have to be intercepted individually.

Who do you think would be the first to strike?

I should clarify.. will a nuke ever be used again for hostile reasons.

By all rational standards the country most likely to use a nuke is the US: It's the only country that has used nuclear weapons in a war before, it has a huge nuclear arsenal, it has a recent history of starting multiple wars of choice and has a military doctrine for global power projection.

[Spellsword]

To add to what people have already said, its and Russia has admitted ( and then denied ) in various occasions that they have stations operated by a dead man switch that will activate in case of nuclear threat, one of the stations being in Siberia closest to Alaska with the capability of detecting the sismic wave of a Nuclear launch by the United States.

These safeguards are believed to not be online constantly and need to be activated in case of emergency so that Russia can retaliate even if the Kremlin and all government is destroyed, it has also been mentioned that the dead man switch is to prevent the Russian Premier of hesitantly not retaliate against a nuclear attack, so even if the president does no authorize a counter attack to a nuclear attack against russia this system will ensure that happens.

I read somewhere ( speculation ofc ) that a dead man switch like system in russia is actually capable of launching ALL of russian nuclear weapons, in case a single launch silo is destroyed all of them will be deployed this would happen again in case all of Russian government is wiped out in a first strike.

This sort of counter attack would ensure the destruction of the entire world, considering Russia has around 10k armed nuclear bombs that we know of.

This sounds incredibly stupid to me, what about large earthquakes and such? Would that set their dead mans switch off? Sounds absolutely retarded.. can't imagine they actually have that in place.

Just imagine we all die because it had a false positive lol

[Deleted]

The other problem with using anti-matter as a weapon is that it's expensive. In 1999, NASA quoted a single gram of antihydrogen as costing about $62.5 trillion. It would also take CERN roughly 100 billion years to create this single gram operating at peak capacity with 0% loss.

Give me $62.5 trillion dollars and 100 billion years, and I'll cause more damage with a crew of workers and some shovels than a single gram of antihydrogen will cause in an explosion. We're a VERY long way away from large-scale practical applications of antimatter.

Which means: current production methods are shit. must work on them more first.

[Jersovic]

At least:

1 Command center w/ Nuclear Silo.
1 Barracks.
1 Starport.
1 Science Facility w/ covert ops.
1 Terran Ghost unit.

Not counting supply depots, resource costs, or likely necessary diversion troops.

[Deleted]

This sounds incredibly stupid to me, what about large earthquakes and such? Would that set their dead mans switch off? Sounds absolutely retarded.. can't imagine they actually have that in place.

Just imagine we all die because it had a false positive lol

According to wiki, the system uses a combination of seismic, light, radioactivity and overpressure detectors. So an earthquake would not set it off.

It was designed in response to a new generation of more accurate US nuclear SLBMs, which might otherwise have been able to defeat the Soviet command-and-control system, before it would have a chance to retaliate.

But it's unclear if the system was/is actually operational.

[Zoldor]

What does it really take? Dumb 3rd world or 2nd world countries who think a nuke is actually a valid plan of attack or one that has a result they actually want. Most major countries are beyond nuclear weapons they just don't release the info, because well why give away the next best thing if you can hide it. Nukes are very out of date in a sense, I mean look at what countries are getting them, shit most of those places just got Air conditioning. Nukes are highly ineffective, beyond just devastation. They destroy the land mass, contaminate it and make its resources worthless, one of the major reason we have war generally. Virus and bio warfare is also highly ineffective because its almost totally uncontrollable, if it can infect people that means it can be spread and most people won't be safe including a large portion of the people who release it. The next big power house in weapons and arms will be something that is efficient at killing people and leaving behind all the good parts, we've created things that can wipe us out, the next goal will be to refine those things so that we can keep the attacking side "safe," leave the resources, the land and keep the population for "nation building" or outsourcing, otherwise known as slavery.

Would take a person with the power to launch a nuke, with nothing to loose, and very little desire to keep themselves or anyone else alive.

[stevepelle91]

I'd be willing to wager that the next nuke used in war will be detonated at a high altitude to form an EMP. Less of a mess to clean up, but equally or more effective.

[Puck]

What does it REALLY take to set off a nuke?

A blatant disregard to human life.

[Saeran]

Just is just spooky when I saw this post. Just been re-watching The War game (1965) and Threads (1984) - you should Google it. Two disturbing films about nuclear war from the UK.

Bedtime now, to have nightmares about it all :S

[Deleted]

“The nuclear arms race is like two sworn enemies standing waist deep in gasoline, one with three matches, the other with five.”
― Carl Sagan

Pretty much says it all. Nuclear weapons are simply too unbridled in the havoc that they wreak to ever be used seriously by anyone, nor would they ever be used because some country is inevitably going to be Russia or America's BFF, and then all hell breaks loose; stick to bullets and a steady aim.

[Bigbamboozal]

Dearest OP, the ONLY country that ever used a nuke in war was....oh right...YOUR country.
So the real question I suppose is "when does your country plan to supply both sides of a conflict with weapons and supplies only to have it come back and bite them in their deserving asses again, only to have them then decide to kill millions of innocent and non military targets with a nuke?"

[Defengar]

What sort of clearances and verification are in place to ensure it's absolutely needed to be used? Surely it's not the decision for one man to make, is it? Is this information even public? I have no clue but I am a sort of paranoid schitzo and this has always been one of my fears... my city getting obliterated by a nuke at random lol I know it sounds stupid but a little reassurance is nice, plus this is just interesting.

How advanced is the US anti air missile technology? Could we stop or even detect an incoming nuke, it would most likely be a stealth nuke yeah? Do we (the US) monitor this stuff constantly? Is any country stupid enough to start nuclear warfare? Will a nuke ever be used again? Who do you think would be the first to strike?

I should clarify.. will a nuke ever be used again for hostile reasons.

The launch codes are kept in an object known as "the football". it is within a few seconds distance of the president AT ALL TIMES. A launch station goes with the president at all times as well. there is one in the white house, likely in the basement bunker, one on air force one, and likely a portable suitcase one as well.
When it comes down to midnight, it is solely up to the president whether to use a nuke or not to.

america has the best missile defense in the world. 62 billion dollars is spent on it annually and it was the only part of the military not cut after the cold war.
a single incoming nuke, even on an advanced ICBM would be a non issue for it because the system was designed for scenario's with THOUSANDS of ICBM's heading towards us. priority protection being given to large populated area's and military bases. if you launched a thousand nukes at america its doubtful even 10 at most would get through.

THEN IT WOULD BE OUR MOTHER FUCKING TURN

Large nukes are probably never going to be used again, but small ones might, especially the new bunker busters coming out known as "massive ordinance penetrators" that will be capable of tunneling through 300 feet of bedrock or concrete before going off and releasing minimal amounts of fallout.

as a side not, if you want to end a siege quickly... NUKE CANNON BITCHES!!!

[Larynx]

Nukes are so 20th century.

Ion supercannons are where it's at.

---------- Post added 2012-03-29 at 10:07 PM ----------

Dearest OP, the ONLY country that ever used a nuke in war was....oh right...YOUR country.
So the real question I suppose is "when does your country plan to supply both sides of a conflict with weapons and supplies only to have it come back and bite them in their deserving asses again, only to have them then decide to kill millions of innocent and non military targets with a nuke?"

I sense great conflict within this one... Worrisome, it is...

[Foxytrott]

If one were to fire such a missile, there would be sent 10 times the missiles back in the country's face, however retarded you are, it couldn't or shouldn't be in anyones interest to fire a nuke as you would destroy yourself alongside your entire country.

[Reg]

Dearest OP, the ONLY country that ever used a nuke in war was....oh right...YOUR country.
So the real question I suppose is "when does your country plan to supply both sides of a conflict with weapons and supplies only to have it come back and bite them in their deserving asses again, only to have them then decide to kill millions of innocent and non military targets with a nuke?"

Such simplistic thinking.

[Deleted]

Dumb 3rd world or 2nd world countries who think a nuke is actually a valid plan of attack or one that has a result they actually want.

Or a dumb 1st world country with the same thoughts.

One with a massive nuclear arsenal.
And a recent history of starting multiple wars of choice.
With a global military presence, and a leadership who feels they need to project power all over the world.

A country doesn't have to be poor, to do something dumb.

By all rational consideration the US is the most likely country to first set off a nuke. In addition to the points above:
1) Most other countries involved in tensions/conflicts have them with their neighbours, or with internal groups. Nuking someone nearby contaminates your own people too. In contrast, the US is involved in tensions/conflicts on the other side of the world, so it wouldn't suffer fall-out.
2) The presence of a missile defense reduces concern about nuclear retaliation, so the US has one less reason to not launch a first strike.

[Defengar]

Or a dumb 1st world country with the same thoughts.

One with a massive nuclear arsenal.
And a recent history of starting multiple wars of choice.
With a global military presence, and a leadership who feels they need to project power all over the world.

A country doesn't have to be poor, to do something dumb.

By all rational consideration the US is the most likely country to first set off a nuke. In addition to the points above:
1) Most other countries involved in tensions/conflicts have them with their neighbours, or with internal groups. Nuking someone nearby contaminates your own people too. In contrast, the US is involved in tensions/conflicts on the other side of the world, so it wouldn't suffer fall-out.
2) The presence of a missile defense reduces concern about nuclear retaliation, so the US has one less reason to not launch a first strike.

dude... we don't need to use our nukes to start an attack... do you not remember how much we fucked the Iraqi army in 2 weeks with conventional missiles!??!!
we don't need to use nukes because everything else we have is golden. A much more likely nuclear exchange would be in a pakistan vs india conflict.

[Deleted]

america has the best missile defense in the world. 62 billion dollars is spent on it annually and it was the only part of the military not cut after the cold war.
a single incoming nuke, even on an advanced ICBM would be a non issue for it because the system was designed for scenario's with THOUSANDS of ICBM's heading towards us. priority protection being given to large populated area's and military bases. if you launched a thousand nukes at america its doubtful even 10 at most would get through.

Oh dear, you really are horribly misinformed.

Let me ask you one question: Can US missile defense systems distinguish between a nuclear warhead and an aluminum balloon with a small heat-source inside, during the free-flight phase?

The answer is "no". They have exactly the same radar and infrared signatures. (Obviously the nuclear warhead would be packed inside an identical balloon.) There's a huge difference in mass, but alas, that's physically indistinguishable outside the atmosphere. So a single ICBM can effectively hide its warheads among dozens of decoys.

To intercept a ballistic missile during the boost phase requires an interceptor to be stationed very nearby, which is usually impossible.

That leaves the terminal phase, which requires the interceptor to be stationed near the point of impact. Which allows point-defense, at least in theory, but it also means area-defense is prohibitively expensive, since you would need to station interceptors all over the area.

And in practice the effectiveness of current point-defense systems is doubtful too.